Intel Core Ultra X9 388H vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H

Updated Nov 2026 · Scored by the Let’s Compare Data Engine · How we score

For most buyers the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the better pick — it scores 62/100 to the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H's 58, leading on Integrated Graphics and Benchmark. Choose the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H instead if you want to spend less.

Verdict

Our overall take, at a glance

Key takeaways

  • Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H are closely matched overall (within 4 points).
  • Intel Core Ultra X9 388H stands out on Benchmark PassMark CPU Mark: 36,504 (9% more), Core Specifications Maximum Frequency: 5.1 GHz (6% more).
Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H are closely matched
Intel Core Ultra X9 388H
62
Intel Core Ultra X7 358H
58
Where Intel Core Ultra X9 388H stands out
  • Benchmark PassMark CPU Mark: 36,504 (9% more)
  • Core Specifications Maximum Frequency: 5.1 GHz (6% more)

In-depth analysisAI

AI-generated from the cited sources — may be incomplete or inaccurate; verify important details before deciding · generated Nov 2026.

Intel Core Ultra X9 388H

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a high-performance mobile processor featuring 16 cores and 16 threads, designed for demanding laptop applications. It scales from a 25-watt base power consumption up to 80 watts maximum, pairing a 5.1 GHz maximum frequency with integrated Intel Arc B390 graphics.

Best for high-performance content creation laptopsBest for demanding mobile computing and gaming systems
Pros
  • High maximum frequency of 5.1 GHz for demanding workloads
  • Robust multi-core performance with 16 cores and 16 threads
  • Generous 24 MB L2 cache and 18 MB L3 cache configuration
  • Capable Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics
Cons
  • High power consumption scaling up to 80 watts under maximum load
  • May require robust laptop thermal solutions to maintain peak performance

Intel Core Ultra X7 358H

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a high-performance processor designed to handle demanding computing workloads. With a documented PassMark CPU Mark score of 36,000, this chip is engineered to provide robust processing capabilities. It is built for integration into modern, performance-oriented systems requiring significant processing power.

Best for Resource-heavy applications and software developmentBest for High-performance portable or small form factor computing setups
Pros
  • Delivers strong multi-threaded performance, as indicated by a PassMark CPU Mark score of 36,000
  • Modern architecture designed for intensive computing tasks
Cons
  • Limited publicly detailed specifications regarding core configurations, power consumption, and thermal limits in official documentation

Value for Money

Which is the better deal for the price

Enter today's price for each product to see which offers better value. Use the same currency for both.

Intel Core Ultra X9 388H

Intel Core Ultra X7 358H

Performance

Higher benchmark score = faster

Intel Core Ultra X9 388H36,504
Intel Core Ultra X7 358H33,559

Benchmark score — a measured indicator of raw performance, not a guarantee of real-world speed.

Review Videos

Hand-picked expert reviews for each product

Detailed Specifications

The full spec sheet, side by side

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about Intel Core Ultra X9 388H vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H comparison

They are closely matched: Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 69/100 and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 68/100 in our overall comparison — within 1 point. Neither is a clear winner overall, so the decision comes down to the specific features and price that matter most to you.
Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H are compared side by side above across every spec in the cpus category — including performance, features and design — each scored 0–100 so you can see exactly where one leads the other. Our overall scores are 69/100 for Intel Core Ultra X9 388H and 68/100 for Intel Core Ultra X7 358H.
It's close — Intel Core Ultra X9 388H (69/100) and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H (68/100) score almost the same. Pick based on price and the individual specs that matter most to you; the comparison above shows where each one pulls ahead.

Which would you buy?

Cast your vote